Musical Personalities Present on Listology

I've noted that people on the site seem to generally fall (not quite neatly) into one of several categories musically. I'm mainly doing this because I feel that there are certain musical personalities that should never argue with one another, because the discussion will go around and around and around and around and no ground will be covered. Also, anyone who feels that their musical personality isn't represented, or that they have been unfairly categorized, please let me know. It's not my intention to insult anyone, merely to list - I have no contempt whatsoever for any of the categories (excepting number 7). I'd also very much like it if all those who read this list posted what category best fits them. I'm hoping to eventually have every major contributer to listology in one of the musical categories. I may eventually make a test to determine the type. :D

Scaruffi-ists.

Personality: Whether intentional or not, these individuals have very close tastes to those on Scaruffi's lists and opinions, and their lists are accordingly similar (a few even go so far as to practically worship the man). Some feel that their favorites slowly came into alignment with Scaruffi's over time, others did indeed directly copy his lists, making themselves like all of the albums (I can't name a precise example of this at the moment, but I've seen a list or two that were uncannily like Scaruffi's, far beyond any possible coincidence of taste). Either way, reading one of their favorites lists is essentially the same as reading Scaruffi's. Musically, the albums are difficult to listen to, intense, complex, emotional, original, and immersive, and they usually take many listens to reveal themselves.

Personality: It's largely my fault that this one showed up on listology. It's self-explanatory: individuals who are obsessed with trance (especially epic and anthem) and little else. Generally, it's those who are starting to dislike the mainstream, and aare turning to trance as an out - this is sort of a gateway, and most move on after 1-3 years.

Personality: This is a classic musical personality, well-known across music criticism. Many in this group believe that music hit its stride in the 60s-70s, and has basically been going downhill since. This group prefers mainstream rock (and pop rock) acts from that period, and sees most music outside of that box as greatly inferior. The importance is on musicians that use the medium of rock as one of auteur-like self-expression. Many despise pop and disco (and consider them to be an inauthentic form of self-expression - which is very important for this group - although some like "rockier" pop like The Bare Naked Ladies). This group also usually dislikes what it deems "pretentious" music (such as very electronic Scaruffi selections like Irrlicht and Faust), which is generally music that seems to be original for the sake of originality (to them) - although this is usually better regarded than the inauthentic pop, and some rockists highly respect certain "difficult" albums (such as Trout Mask Replica, and especially The Velvet Underground). This group has some cross-over with Scaruffi-ists, but the two types should never argue, as the two groups look for very different things in music. Note that some in this group do like current music, mainly indie rock. Some rockists, in fact, highly regard indie rock, and consider it a favorite upon rock. Also note that some rockists don't hold any of the opinions I stated above, they just simply happen to like the same music as those who do - I would call this atypical rockism.

Personality: This is where tranceaddicts when epic trance no longer exites. This group is into electronic music of all kinds, or at least many kinds, and has usually developed a fascination with sound in general. Most still have ties to their dance roots, enjoying styles as disperate as jungle and house, but some move on further to enjoy electronic listening styles such as ambient. "Minimal" is currently a huge favorite in this group. Many move on from this group to another personality, it's often a gateway genre to either eclecticism or Scaruffi-ism (mainly due to Scaruffi's love of classic electronica and the very electronica-like Krautrock such as Klaus Schulze - Irrlicht and Faust - faust.)

Personality: These people either actively strive to like every genre of music, or like such a wide variety of music that it's essentially the same thing. Usually those in this category have progressively travelled through a series of other musical personalities before reaching this. Most who fall into this category despise the current mainstream, but some enjoy a number of rockist selections. No one in this type actually likes literally every style, but it's generally a very large number of types. Also note that this type has likes in dislikes in even their favorite genres (it isn't simply "I like everything" - a phrase I find really silly, and is really just used by 14 year old girls who like "both kinds of music, rock AND hip-hop"). I might call this category the indecisive one.

Personality: This group not only loves the mainstream, they love pop music PERIOD, from every era. 1950s? 60s? Today? Doesn't matter, these people love it all. From The Beatles to the Backstreet Boys to Buddy Holly, it's all game. Anyone in this group would be absolutely perfect as a wedding DJ.

Personality: This group simply follows whatever is currently popular. It's not very common here: in fact, I've never seen it on listology. I suppose it's because coming here and talking about music already implies that one is thinking about music, which is something that those who only follow trends aren't doing. Music isn't art for this group, it's fashion.

Personality: This is a very self-explanatory type: basically, it's people who like metal and little else. There is a wide range of metalhead types: some only like the side closer to (and poking into) the mainstream (like Metallica and System of a Down), while others have particular underground styles that they enjoy (Dream Theatre and Pantera seem pretty popular with many in this set). Some metalheads enjoy a few other dark genres outside the rock roots of metal.

An interesting list. A couple points though I hardly care if you correct them or not. They're merely interesting:

The description of myself as a typical Scaruffist is pretty apt I guess, but somewhat limiting. And I am not sure why lukeprog isn't the primary one listed since he is the starting point of the whole evolution as regards listology, and also has other lists that are even based on Scaruffi's writing style (his video game list, etc.). Also, I am no more typical or atypical in my love for classical music than most serious music listeners, which is actually significantly greater than my overall love for the typical Scaruffi choices of rock and jazz. As part of my point, my very favorite music works/albums are almost all classical, and sooner or later the entire rest of my list will be so dominated.

Also, Parable and I are closely related simply because we often share music outside of the web. We are really good friends in real life. I think it is rather limiting to list us both as the two main purveyors due to this fact. No offense intended to Parable at all (he'd be the first to agree with this), but he is a rather infrequent, less known contributor to the site (due only to his inconsistency of contribution). Much more accurate, if you were to list 2 typical "Scaruffists" would be both myself and lukeprog, and if only one, it should be lukeprog.

Also, this has been brought up before, but I don't agree at all with the following pronouncement:

Whether intentional or not, these individuals worship Scaruffi's lists and opinions, and their lists are accordingly similar.

It's not Scaruffi, it's the music I "worship". He is simply the way I discovered much of it. I don't listen to Scaruffi so much as I listen to the music and find myself in agreement a large percentage of cases. I think most "real" Scaruffists (god that sounds stupid), feel the same way.

OK, that's fair enough. which means that soon enough you'll be a category 8 (as yet undefined), which would be a classical-oriented listener. As for the description of yourself as a scaruffi-ist, perhaps you're right, and worship isn't the right word. I would say you fall into the category of Scaruffi-ists that don't purposely try to copy Scaruffi, but use his music lists as a jumping point.

Haha, I think most people could be given their own category, but we're going with broad generalizations here, like all definitions of "personality." Do you prefer my new definition of Scaruffi-ist (just edited), or is there anything you'd suggest changing?

That's fine. I really don't mind as long as it's fair and accurate. I question the following statement since it is delivered as factual when I am not aware of any proof of it:

"...others did indeed directly copy his lists, making themselves like all of the albums."

And I still think the sample individuals should be myself and lukeprog, both of us being the most comprehensive and well-known examples (I am not saying that to toot my own horn or lukeprog's at all. It's just the way it is, for better or worse.). Because of his knowledge level and obvious dedication I wouldn't rule out Seansean as well, but the problem is he's relatively new and hasn't posted any lists.

OK, I'll add lukeprog then, for sure. I was never all that sure because of some of his comments on my electronic lists, which is why he wasn't the primary, but looking at his lists now, that makes more sense. Thanks for the tip :D

Maybe that "forcing themselves to like all of his albums" statement goes a bit far, but there have been a few lists that have strongly given me that impression - the similarities have been beyond coincedence for something as subjective as music. I can't think of precisely which lists they were, just that I've seen this a few times in the past. Please let me know if you run into a list that does this. I'll drop the statement if I don't run into one after a while.

I'd count to the extent of being an appreciator (sp?) of the aesthetic we're talking about at least.

As for that aesthetic, maybe we should try to pin down exactly what it is. I'd say it's a valuing of a combination of originality and emotional intensity in music as evaluated on a musical work holistically (meaning the parts don't matter unless they're significant enough to impact the whole to a great degree). AfterHours's disclaimers in his album ratings explain the aeshetic very well.

In valuing the relative merits of music in this particular way (however we exactly describe the way), one must only compare the way the music it comes across to what had been done before. It should be noted that this requires ignoring several key concepts which are valued by other aesthetics. These concepts are often brought up (in arguments in support of a band's merit) by those who value other aeshetics, and when it is replied that the points they are irrelevant, it should be noted that they're only irrelevant to one aesthetic. It is not implied that the other aesthetics are invalid or wrong.

The concepts to ignore (in order to evaluate holistically and relative-to-time):

- Recording/playing techniques. The results of the techniques should be apparent merely in listening to the music. If they're not, the techinque becomes piece of trivia that doesn't contribute to whatever makes the music innovative-sounding music and emptionally intense. If the results are interesting and make the music interesting, the fact that they come from a specific technique is not important, but the actual results themselves are. By the same token would go the literal "difficulty" of the creation process.
- Future developments. It doesn't matter how widespread an idea became or if it's developments were later expanded upon creatively. These things detract from the approach of "comparing to the past", which is the appropriate historical perspective sought out.
- "Influence" in and of itself. If a band's influences show they had a precedent, it's the fact that they had a precedent that invalidates them to a degree, not that it was by way of "influence". A precedent is equally as noteworthy even if the latter band never heard the former band. And an "influence" that doesn't show up in the way the music sounds does not qualify as a precedent, so shouldn't be important in that discussion.
- Innovations that were mere dabbling which didn't compensate for the fact that their presence was in an otherwise uncreative context. Something that's been done before can still be done in an original and intense way, especially when being done in a groundbreakingly in depth degree.

Honestly Sean get a life and give it a rest. I thought Kahutz put you in your place. You have some nerve to put down an artist if they come up with something new. If it influences others thats what matters. If it it's not creative by your standards then its deem not an innovation.

Recording/playing techniques are important just because your bands did not come up with any. If others used that Recording/playing technique its important. I don't mean to dump on you but if someone comes up with a new recording/playing technique they should be applauded. Honestly being a musician you have some nerve.

Future developments- Please if someone music influences a future development it’s important. Something that should not be casually thrown away. Like the Beatles with Byrds or the Beatles with Can and ELO

INFLUENCE- anyone influencing a musician or a group is important. Whether its Rush who was influenced by the Who or the Beach Boys influenced by Phil Spector.

Innovation- First if someone innovates something who the hell are you to say its uncreative when the innovation is from the musician itself. The only thing I agree with is your last statement. No music starts from scratch and you could innovate or make variations of music.

I don't think it's fair to attack someone's opinion on music on the forum for this list, seeing as the purpose of this list is to point out that all of us see music differently. This is directed at you Rank1. Seanseansean is expressing those views on music as his opinion, which is what this list asks for. It's not to invalidate anyone who falls under a different category on the list of personalities. He can dislike bands if he wants to, and view music however he personally wants. Note that he is a Scaruffiist, and you are a rockist - the two of you shouldn't argue about music, because you'll never agree. Neither view is more or less valid, and the purpose of this list is really to point that out (note that most views are not more or less valid than one another).

There's different criteria in juding music, and in my criteria and AfterHours' criteria, artistic merit is grounded in different things than in yours. There's nothing wrong with either way. And this thread was just supposed to explain the differences in the viewpoints

My criteria judges works of art insofar as how they are achievements in the creative organization of sounds-as-emotions. So that's why recording techniques don't really affect my thought process. They don't fit into that picture. They're nothing to frown upon, and they certainly have other merits and make for fun discussion, but their extistence doesn't always contribute to what I'm trying to evaluate, which is the way music sounds. Basically, I totally agree that someone coming up with a new technique should be applauded. But there's a difference between my applause and my assessment of artistic creativity. There's a difference between what I deem as merit in general and artistic merit in particular.

I'm not putting down an artist for coming up with something new. I'm just saying that I personally find it more worthwhile when the new thing is done in an extensive way, and with deep emotional content. Sure, all else being equal, something new is significant to me.

Also when an artist has an influence over others who come later, that's not something I'm denying or even ignoring. I'm just saying that this fact doesn't contribute to my assessment of the artist's artistic merit since mine is base on a comparison been him/her and the past. You said "anyone influencing a musician or a group is important". You're totally right. But they'd be "important" only when judged under a certain criteria. It's really just apples and oranges.

I'm trying to develop one, but I'm not sure where to jump off. A few of my favorite albums are classical, but nearly to Afterhours' extent (and I think I'm too typically ADHD to ever have a serious passion for any particular type of music).

I have absolutely no idea what category I'd fall under now, in terms of musical personalities I'm a mess. I've recently really started liking Rock (and a lot of quite Scaruffi orientated I must admit), and had a go at a couple of Jazz albums, your list is a good starting point for that I think. I still do really like all the electronic stuff (particularly ambient, I'm planning to make a list of my own for that someday), I'm just not in the electronic 'phase' at the moment, though if I started listening to it properly I can imagine getting immersed in it pretty quickly. I guess I just want to learn a lot more about music, though I'm not experienced enough at present to really call myself an eclecticist. I like the names by the way, especially 'Robots' LOL.

BTW I explained my archiving of my Minimal list in reply to your comment by the way, it kind of corresponds with my above explanation of my current tastes, though I describe what actually happened more in detail.

A very appropriate list I believe for the moment, considering the proportion of posts on listology which are concerned with comments between members of the different groups. Blind and I pretty much have an identical music taste being brothers and at any one time having a near identical collection. Seeing as i cannot download music at university at the moment we have probably diverged a little but during the holidays I would not be surprised once again to see us wanting to listen to the same things.

I would say I am personally heading towards eclecticism but currently am under robot and scaruffist with a bit of rockist thrown in.

'Seeing as i cannot download music at university at the moment we have probably diverged a little but during the holidays I would not be surprised once again to see us wanting to listen to the same things.'

I don't wanna be out of those guys who just says, "I like everything!" I have a pretty diverse taste in music, but I'd say New Wave is my favorite style because it's the only one where I'll seek out pretty much anything by that virtue alone ;) Many of the bands I really like have some sort of trace back to it.

Also you could easily consider Kraftwerk to be - "The Model" is a perfect example...so is the entire Computer World album.

Well, note that eclecticism (ADHD) doesn't imply that one likes everything, simply that one has enjoyed music in a variety of genres that aren't really seen as very related. For example, I'm definitely ADHD (eclecticist), but I wouldn't say I like everything. I have both likes and dislikes in even my favorite styles.

But I don't know if I'd call you electicist, looking at your list. You may, actually, fall under "robot," although it's tough to say for you. You're a difficult case, for sure. Any ideas? Maybe if you made a list of, say, your 50 favorite bands it might be easier.

I tentatively describe you as a number 6 (since every artist on that list is very popular, and almost all of them have charted), but it wouldn't take much to push you towards a number 5, maybe after a stint or two in a couple of the other types. Does that sound about right to you?

I think you've got me pegged wrong as a rockist. I do love the Beatles and many other classic rock bands, but I must admit there are some Scaruffi albums I really like too, and I certainly don't think that music has just been going downhill since the 70s. In fact, some of the music I enjoy the most is modern indie rock (some of my favorites being the Fiery Furnaces, the New Pornographers, the White Stripes, the Decemberists, Elliott Smith, Ted Leo, Sufjan, etc.).

A friend of mine was once scrolling through my over 10,000-song iTunes Library and commented, "You know, I think your taste in music goes beyond eclectic. I think it borders on comprehensive." Hence, I think I should be in the #5 category.

Remember that rockism encompasses a lot of Scaruffi albums, and many rockists like indie rock (because it is, after all, still rock). My basis for describing you as rockist was this list here that you made. That list is, in fact, a pretty good example of the sort of thing that a rockist would like (and I was actually considering putting a link to it in my rockist section). Does that list still accurately describe you? If not, I'll certainly have to place you elsewhere, like you're saying. I should, however, make a few edits to the "rockist" description, because certain parts of it don't really describe all rockists, just the stereotype of a rockist.

That list was made over three years ago, and my taste has expanded since then. It's still somewhat accurate though, so if you were categorizing me as a rockist based on my extreme love for some of the classic rock giants (Beatles/Stones/Dylan/Springsteen/Bowie/Who/Clash/Van Morrison), that's fair. It's just the mentality you describe that I don't really see myself fitting into. I don't agree with any of these statements:

"music hit its stride in the 60s-70s, and has basically been going downhill since"

"[I] prefer mainstream rock (and pop rock) acts from that period, and sees most music outside of that box as greatly inferior"

"The importance is on musicians that use the medium of rock as one of auteur-like self-expression" [This is kind of a vague statement, but I guess I disagree with it because I still love music that I see as largely designed to entertain more so than express oneself. Examples of that from some of the top artists on my list include the Beatles' "Back in the USSR," Dylan's "I Shall Be Free," the Who's "My Wife," most of Bowie's scifi stuff, and pretty much everything by Parliament/Funkadelic. Of course, even music that entertains is a form of self-expression, so it might help if you told me how this statement makes rockists different from any other group.]

"[I] despise pop and disco" [I do despise a lot of pop, but there is plenty that I find very infectious. I can really appreciate a catchy melody just as much as auteurs expressing themselves. As for disco, I'm not sure why it merits a separate category here, but I do own the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack and really like it.]

"This group also usually dislikes what it deems 'pretentious' music (such as very electronic Scaruffi selections like Irrlicht and Faust)" [I actually like Faust quite a bit. It's not one of my favorites, but I do like it.]

The caveats you've added don't really do enough to change my belief that the rockist mentality you describe isn't right for me. It's possible, of course, that I do have more in common with the other rockists you mention, and you just haven't pegged our mentality very well. I do think, though, that I agree with pretty much everything you say about eclecticists.

"These people either actively strive to like every genre of music, or like such a wide variety of music that it's essentially the same thing." [Yes. I may have a very classic-rock-heavy top 50 artists, but I like many more artists than that. I own and love CDs by hundreds of artists, and I have even more artists on my iTunes profile, everything from alternative to classical to hip-hop to metal to psychedelic to reggae to what iTunes actually categorizes as "wizard rock."]

"Usually those in this category have progressively travelled through a series of other musical personalities before reaching this" [I used to only be into quirky, semi-comedic bands like Weird Al Yankovic, They Might Be Giants, and Barenaked Ladies. I then moved into a taste in much more mainstream classic rock, downloading as many songs as possible from this radio station list I found of the 1000 greatest songs of all time - stuff like "Imagine," "Brown-Eyed Girl," "Born to Run," etc. With the help of Listology, I gradually explored every genre of music imaginable, finding I liked some more than others and some artists more than other within a genre.]

"[I] despise the current mainstream" [Yes for the most part, but like any eclecticist I keep an open mind.]

"this type has likes in dislikes in even their favorite genres" [Of course. Much as I love those classic rock giants I mentioned earlier, I've never been quite as into the Doors, Elvis Presley, Pink Floyd, John Lennon's solo career, or anything Eric Clapton has ever done. At the same time, I'm not a big fan of country music in general, but I have discovered that I love Johnny Cash, John Prine, and Lucinda Williams. Even within my favorite artists I have likes and dislikes: for REM, I love Automatic for the People but think Murmur, while highly innovative, is a little overrated.]

So as long as you still have faith in your personality descriptions, I would say that my 50 Artists list belies my real musical mentality.

In that case, what I've done is add a new caveat to rockism, because while you seem mostly to like the typical music of a rockist, you do so for very different reasons (and appear to be more open than an average rockist). Of course, like all personality "measurements" there are obviously people who will slide between types. Perhaps it would be better to have degrees of musical personality rather than straight-up categories (much like the OCEAN personality test). For now, I made a subcategory called "atypical rockist."

I think it might be more straightforward to accept me as someone who, despite having the most appreciation for classic rock giants, has a taste wherein I really do like a little of everything (and strive to like a little of everything). Lbangs has a list that is also mostly peppered with classic rock greats, but I don't think anyone can deny his taste is eclectic. But if you feel better calling me an atypical rockist, feel free.

Your analysis of my taste in music is really baffling to me. I have been listening to and loving modern indie rock for at least four years, albums on Scaruffi's top 25 for at least five years, albums that only Scaruffists like for about a year and a half, jazz albums for almost five years, folk albums for over four and a half years, country albums for over four years, electronica albums for over three years, pop music all my life, and classical music since I started watching Looney Tunes as a kid. What about me makes you think that my taste will change in a few months?

I'm thinking this is it, baby. What you see is what you get. I'd rather you just take down the latest caveat.

Ok someone from the other side. Buddy Holly is rock and roll more than he was pop. Chuck Berry, Little Richard were also that.

Classic Rock fall under a huge umbrella from 1965-1980 the Beatles Pop/rock, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Yes, Hendrix etc. You forgot Dylan I am surprised at you Sean.

Velvet Undergrounds lyrics are too radical for classic rock. Classic Rock is more convetional and it's sound has more of a pop influence. "Stairway To Heaven" and "Hey Jude" are the great example of this. There is a book on Classic Rock called All Music Guide to Classic Rock.

By the way you should have added for Musical Personalities the Beatles or Beatleheads. The Beach Boys fall under the umbrella of Pop.

Are there people who only listen to The Beatles? If you can name a few I'll certainly add the type. It's just, everyone I know who likes The Beatles also likes bands and artists like The Doors, The Rolling Stones, and Hendrix.

Haha, nice try, but:
(from "If you could recommend ONE lesser-known artist, it would be," by lukeprog)
"It's not jazz but if you are still manic about Amon Tobin he gets the full Bazooka Joe treatment.
Cordelia's Dad [shape-note, punk, trad]"
- Odysseus

And lets not forget:
"It is no coincidence that Roach was the drummer for some of the most creative and influential artists of the 20th century at exactly the moment when they were most creative and influential. Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Clifford Brown, Booker Little, Dinah Washington, ... and so many more."
- Odysseus

I think 0dysseyus was only having a bit of harmless (and very funny (as is always when it comes to any post by her), if I may add) fun with the grammatical error of the phrase '..people who only listen to The Beatles?' (It should have been '...people who listen to only The Beatles?'... I think).

If only is used as an adverb referring to the verb listen then that implies that there are other things that I (you) could do instead of listening to the indirect object the Beatles. You could watch, smell, massage, dance, take a cold shower...

If listen to the Beatles is a complete and self-contained verbal phrase the implication made by only is that there are other things that I (again, you) could do, and not necessarily to the Beatles. You could listen to Hendrix, open the door, roll some stones, jump down, spin around, pick a bale-a-cotton...

But if there are people who listen only to the Beatles, or, listen to the Beatles only, where only refers to the Beatles then their other options are restricted to listening to other bands. Bands such as the Doors, the Rolling Stones or... the Monkees.

A radio programme that I like and admire often claims that, "Every week more radios are tuned to this program than any other appliance."

In this case discretion isn't the better part of valour. It is valour.

I wish you didn't feel the need to beseech the gods, for it is up to us, the demos. to live in a manner befitting us. We are the ones we have been waiting for. The olive tree helped her to win the city (Attica! Attica! Attica!) and Athena helps those who help themselves... and I always take a second helping.

I am at a loss to understand some bits of what you said. This is happening to me at an such an alarming frequency with a lot of people, that I think I should probably stop reading so much into what people keep hinting at.

At any rate, I think I should probably clarify what I meant. (sheesh. I hate clarifications. They take the fun out of everything.)
"...don't respond".. Ok not entirely, but still I was taken aback by this post. I scratched my head,"What tone does it set? Touchy? Did I hit the nerve I didn't want to? Did I come across as critical of the olive branch against the trolls?"
Simply put, I just became sacred ...and protective. I am a libran and although I don't care to read my horoscopes, I do believe I have a deep rooted aversion to any sort of confrontation, especially when it involves people I care about. That is the only reason why I posted what I said.

Anyways, to clear all clouds, I get most of what you're saying and I also believe that you are absolutely correct when you say that you are capable of dousing fires with a bit of smothering love, and that it is behaviour appropriate of your goals. To question that was not on my mind and none of my business. To repeat what I've said, it was just an impulsive burst of concern and worry. I wasn't aware it may be offending (?).

Even if you did strike a nerve, and you did not, you have enough credibility with me so that I'm easily able to let it go... or discuss it.

I do think pointing out perceived injury done to an innocent (wielding an olive branch, no less) is the very definition of judgmental. This might make people, who are already sniping at each other, defensive and less likely to call it quits. To have this observation come from a third party (or is it a fourth party? 5th?) would be particularly galling.

I have two nephews who are... I'm gonna say "3 years-old." They can be quite mischievous, almost as much as adults. They are far more oppositional with my father, "Opa," than they are with me. When they misbehave with Opa he corrects them again and again... and again when they do the same things over and over... and over.

My reaction to the boys it to tell them to stop and, if they don't, I ignore them. They rarely misbehave when I'm running the show. Seeing this just ratchets up the pressure on my hyper-competitive dad. His attempts at controlling their behaviour become louder, more insistent and more frequent. This delights the boys and they continue to bait him. It is difficult for some, and impossible for Opa, to resist the bait. My motto, at least as regards 3 year-olds, is: Even bad attention is attention.

I have no aversion to confrontation but direct confrontation will lead to launching a thousand ships, formation of huge armed camps and dug-in offensive positions. This inevitably leads to some adolescent tying a naked body to the back of his chariot and riding around the outskirts of town. It's so much easier to build a huge wooden horse.

I probably share many of your concerns but going around and trying to stamp out every greaseball's fire only serves to spread the fire in addition to taking time away from us. That is why I posted a reply to you here; I am trying to show respect to someone by giving him a wide berth. To continue with the horse theme: Any jackass can kick down a barn.

We should subscribe to the entire Belafontian philosophy and "Tally me bananas" before hitting post, not just, "Daylight come and me wan' go home."

Thank you. It is nice to have confirmed I haven't caused any neuralgia. I celebrate your respect and I am very glad it is mutual.

I agree with your philosophy and this only adds to my confusion - if paying attention to the 3 year olds only makes the matters worse (and I agree it does), why pay attention at all? Why bother pacify the snipers when all they want is bloodshed? We all know what trolls are, donwee?

Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong. The third party shouldn't worry about the peacemakes getting hit - it only makes the snipers smell blood and smack their lips in triumph - is that what you meant to tell me?

You know, I just spent ten minutes spraying out my life & times as a troll-killer and the philosophy by which I lead my life of derring-do. Don't worry: it looks much less appealing when written down.

You pay attention because everyone deserves a chance to be heard and understood. If you pay no attention then you abdicate your responsibility as a member of a community. More importantly, it is a loss for you.

As for a third party: when I am on the receiving end of criticism, no matter how well-deserved, any interjection made by a third party makes me angry and defensive. It is hard to restrain oneself from piling on and putting in ones two cents. This is especially true when it comes to emotionally heated exchanges.

whuf... that feels so much better than the half-dozen lengthy paragraphs I wrote at first.

SPOILER -highlight to read ...and just like that, the fever seems to have broken. With nobody banished and people still posting (although perhaps not at the same feverish pace.) Therefore all gratitude has to go to the posters themselves. But soon that memory will fade and then I can steal their thunder, claim the credit. And when Zeus threatens me with lightning I will give that thunder straight back.

Until then I get to continue reading/discussing things, cabbages and kings, with you and others. Everyone gets a respite and I abscond with the Luck of Troy and the acclaim. That's a win, win, win situation for me. I count myself lucky. The only losers are those Trojan bastards. (You'd think the Trojans would help you to avoid that.)

So, who is the wiliest Greek? Okay, it's my mentor (no, not the Mentor.) And then comes the wife. But I am on the podium in all my self-promoting glory. A crown of olive on my head, no branch in my hand but a song in my heart..
Happy Bastille Day to you and yours.

And I also believe in the theory that the bell shaped curve probably explains most phenomena that the spinning top theory can't. So while there is an apparent decrease in the feverant allegations and defences and quotings and counter quotings and bull****ing and counterbull****ing, I fear it might be only temporary.

Keep the olive, my friend. We might need it.

...and I eagerly quote a wily Greek- "The use of spoilers should bring these questions to mind: does it need to be said? Should it be said? And why would people be better off not reading what has been said?

Which brings us to : why say it at all?...no matter how easy or difficult it is to offend anyone."

I think she is a she. I had this same confusion pretty long ago on one of AJ's or luke's lists and AJ said that people at "Listology who have been here for some time interacting with him/her think 0dysseyus is probably a she" or something to that effect.
If I'm not wrong he and lukeprog even had this substantialy long list of evidences favouring either of assumptions (including one side splittingly funny 'guy' joke). I would've rummaged through the archives if only I was on a computer (I am typing on my cellphone and trust me there isn't one single decent mobile browser to allow you to copy-paste).

Honestly Sean get a life and give it a rest. I thought Kahutz put you in your place. You have some nerve to put down an artist if they come up with something new and if it's not creative for you it's not deem worthy. If it influences others that’s what matters. If it it's not creative by your standards then it’s deem not an innovation. I know the Scarzoids will side with you Sean. Sort of double talk when you Scarzoids champion the unheard but God forbid if someone popular comes up with something only a handful use it or it. Would you guys come to their defense? Look in the mirror Sean.

Recording/playing techniques are important just because your bands did not come up with any. If others used that Recording/playing technique it’s important. I don't mean to dump on you but if someone comes up with a new recording/playing technique they should be applauded. Honestly being a musician you have some nerve.

Future developments- Please if someone music influences a future development it’s important. Something that should not be casually thrown away. Like the Beatles with Byrd’s or the Beatles with Can and ELO

INFLUENCE- anyone influencing a musician or a group is important. Whether its Rush who was influenced by the Who or the Beach Boys influenced by Phil Spector.

Innovation- First if someone innovates something who the hell are you to say its uncreative when the innovation is from the musician itself. The only thing I agree with is your last statement. No music starts from scratch and you could innovate or make variations of music

Since you responded in two places, I'll post my above reply down here as well:
I don't think it's fair to attack someone's opinion on music on the forum for this list, seeing as the purpose of this list is to point out that all of us see music differently. This is directed at you Rank1. Seanseansean is expressing those views on music as his opinion, which is what this list asks for. It's not to invalidate anyone who falls under a different category on the list of personalities. He can dislike bands if he wants to, and view music however he personally wants. Note that he is a Scaruffiist, and you are a rockist - the two of you shouldn't argue about music, because you'll never agree. Neither view is more or less valid, and the purpose of this list is really to point that out (note that most views are not more or less valid than one another).

Sean: If you get a life can you also get me one? I've been wanting a new one for quite some time now. Just make sure you keep the receipt.

Kahutz: I've also been looking for a place to be put in. I'd be happy for the help. Lots of people tell me where to go but I don't think they have my best interests in mind. Nothing too expensive or judgmental. Within walking distance of downtown would be great.

Rank1: No need to apologize (to me) for the tone. I find that when I get a bad tone if I hang up quickly it usually goes right away. If not then I go do something else. I think I agree with everything you've said. It would help (me) if I could learn what/why/how you like the things you like (and when.) If "Rockist" is like "sexist" then I don't want to know any more.

What I truly enjoy is argudiscussing with others what sort of music/movies/writing/whatever they like. It almost guarantees that people are interested, involved and intelligent about the argudiscussion.

And I certainly end up learning more... without the burden of convincing others that the subject is worth the time and/or attention. And with only the responsibility of sharership, not ownership.

Thank you Rank1.If a musician makes an innovation major or small they should be credited with it regardless of how creative it is. Recording Techniques, or changing the timbre of a instrument by a new recording a technique is a innovation whether its bass was boosted by using a loudspeaker as its microphone again the Beatles or Hendrix panning guitar style. The innovation is the technique not how creative it is. How creative it is opinion and it could be a biased opinion on top of that.

Many people like music because of how it sounds. But for some us who play we are interested in how they got there. I don't expect most people to care the Beatles were using the Mixolydian Mode in a non Blues Context or the Dorian Mode in "Eleanor Rigby" or Dorian Mode in Classical Indian style in "Love You To" or the Lydian Mode on "Blue Jay Way" in a rock context. That the Beatles used their chords freely which made them modal which influenced Roger McGuinn to go the folk rock route. Or the Beatles were putting microtonal drones on "Tomorrow Never Knows" or the song is 9 STRAIGHT VERSES AND ONE CHORD. That interests me that they went outside the box in pop music and their chord usage. There were plenty who were listening and influenced by them. If you want to know how many followers they had and say compare them to VU well go here. www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

I am more impressed with what the Beatles did but then again that does not make me right.

When I was growing up it never occurred to us to listen to the Beatles for any of those reasons.

Back then all we cared about was the internal parsing of a five measure verse/refrain of "Eleanor Rigby" into a "1 + 3 + 1" pattern, that the first of the two-measure lead-in to the refrain of "Love You To" is in 3/4 time, that the verses of "Blue Jay Way" are all one beat shy of a full, even eight measures and that the instrumental break of "Tomorrow Never Knows" fills sixteen measures, (though its two halves are of unequal lengths; i.e. 6 + 10 measures.)

That was a much simpler time. It was a bucolic way of life but we always managed to find some happiness.

I like everything from Outkast "Hey Ya" to Yes "The Revealing Science of God" (Dance of the Dawn). I listen to music for pure fun when I am out to a club. I agree that I also find it insulting that someone who creates an innovation and if someone finds not creative to his or her standards they brush it aside. That is really an insult to the musician or a sound engineer.

I listen to the Beatles all the time and I cover a couple of their tunes. All four songs you mentioned by the Beatles are all modal with the exception of "Elearnor Rigby" Dorian Mode the rest are strongly influenced by Indian Music and Avant Garde.

I don't think seanseansean was trying to say that it doesn't matter if a musican makes a new innovation, his point was that the innovation only matters if one can hear it. However, (and seanseansean specifically said this), if the innovation affects the sound, it should be considered. So, for example, if someone records a song in 23/7 time with a new musical structure, including ragga strings and all glass instruments with someone bashing two tubes of toothpaste together as the beat, it should be considered innovative. On the other hand, if someone creates a completely derivative, boring album, but touts how it was recorded on a new piece of equipment with a new technique, I don't think that makes it special or worth listening to. That's certainly what seanseansean was saying, it was right in his post.

However, my earlier argument was that rockists shouldn't be attacking Scaruffi-ists' musical tastes on this list or vice versa, considering that one of the purposes of this list was to point out how useless it is for those 2 groups to fight (the arguments are circular and repetitive, no ground is covered, and everyone just gets annoyed and starts flinging insults) - especially since seanseansean was simply posting how he personally views music to better help with his personality placement. Even more especially, because Rank1 was using (in part) an ad hominem argument. Personal attacks in intellectual debate are logically fallacious, and they say nothing about the points anyone is making. Not only are the attacks usually unfounded (IE: claiming an intellectual opponent has no life, which is a classic [and particularly stupid] example), but no matter what kind of person someone is, they can still be right. IE: a child molesting religious fanatic in the KKK with an IQ of 50 can still make a good point worth considering. A factual truth is not made any less true when it is said by a disreputable person (which I'm not saying seanseansean is), so attacking the person making the argument is a waste of time and just makes everyone angry.

BTW Kahutz, where would you put yourself? You haven't made any lists, so I have nothing to judge yet. Please make some lists so I can place you :D

Darktremor, my point of view is Sean logic is flawed and an insult. I do agree on certain points by and large it's flawed. Not that I expect anyone that is on your side of the turf to admit that I might be right on some of my points.

A- An insult to someone who had the fortitude and intelligence to come up with the innovation.
B- An insult to someone who had the fortitude and intelligence to come up with a recording technique or style which is an innovation.
C- Being creative is a matter of taste and opinion. Like you said logically fallacious. Thanks Darktremor you are expanding my vocabulary.
D- Every musician has their own vision for example if ELO wanted to expand where the Beatles left of on "I am the Walrus", Then that musician The Beatles should be credited for starting a future musical development. Give credit to the originator.
E- His explanation for influence is so flawed. It’s the combination or concepts of someone music that influences musicians or even a musical idea that influences that musician or songwriter.
F- Here is another classic example if the Beatles influenced Brian Wilson to make a better album. The A- The Beatles should be credited for influencing Brian Wilson. B- Brian Wilson should be also credited for making a great album
G- No one starts music from scratch. That’s the key point.

I don't think it's an insult to the musician, I think it's just how Seanseansean views art. I personally don't fully agree with the way he sees music, and don't view music that way myself (I mean, look at my lists: half of them are electronica - I agree with some of his points, not others), but I'm not offended that that is how he sees it.

"Wrong and right," or "offensive or not offensive" isn't how we should think about this, especially here. Being insulted that someone sees music differently is like being offended that someone is introverted, because you're an extrovert. Disagree, sure. But don't be offended or insulted.

What's weird is that I completely agree with what you're saying, so I think you're just misinterpreting some of my posts. I absolutely applaud anyone who comes up with a new idea or concept. I think that's very valuable and great. And if someone influences someone else, I will celebrate their contribution to history.

Wow, how'd I get on here?! It's been all about the movie lists for me for quite awhile. I wish I qualified as eclectic, but I don't go deep enough or wide enough for that. It's flattering to be included, though! Looking at my old music lists, I'm curious to know what got me the nod?

(I won't be hurt if you re-review my lists and axe me; I'm not nearly as eclectic as others in the personality... or the other personalities, for that matter.)

No no, it's not that I don't think it's right, it's just that I don't think I'm a very impressive representative of the personality. I'm eclectic, but not broadly eclectic. There are so many genres I haven't even dipped my toes into yet.

Sure, but I'm trying to log every major listologist's personality, and while maybe you're not the best example of the personality, you still fall under it. For example, I'd call myself extroverted, but I'm certainly not as good an example of the personality trait as say, Barack Obama. Unless there's something else you feel fits you better? What kinds of music do you listen to?

I don't believe in lists or polls. I might add one. I listen to the musicians point of view before someone elses first. I am being truthful in this thought. Music like sports are open to everyone to talk of discuss. That’s fine with me. I just don't believe in your ideology. I am a music fan first but on this list it's Classic Rock and Pop Music. The Doors are Classic Rock. I stand on my point that I don't agree with hardly anything Sean said. Also if an album is boring to you it's a matter of opinion. I think Pink Floyd first album is horrible and the Doors debut album better. I think the Rolling Stones "Aftermath" is dated. Does this make me right no way?

If ELO decides to pick up on where the Beatles left off on "I am the Walrus" or again The Byrd’s decide to forge folk rock because of the Beatles chord progressions. These both created future musical developments then the Beatles should be credited for it. I find it ludicrous that someone would deny this.

For these reasons, there is no song in Rock Music that combined the concepts of "I am The Walrus" other than the Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever". Then there is the Byrd’s Roger McGuinn- "It was really the Beatles who made the biggest difference in so many folk musicians’ lives”.” They were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll". So there you have it from the horse’s mouth the Beatles Music started another trend in music. The Beau Breummels another by product of the Beatles. The Beatles music had the right concepts or combinations that influenced these artists in a different musical vision. Some might have had one element or two like the Searchers in common with the Beatles but they lacked backbeat and the modal harmonies the Beatles had. You guys don't look at the Beatles music in the way McGuinn and Lynne nor should I expect you to. I give credit where it belongs.

As I remember some of you guys were abusive to Revolver and Rank1. At least Rank1 apologized.

I understand that you don't believe in darktremor's ideology. I'm unsure what darktremor's ideology is but I appreciate your position; it's a very Thomas Covenant/Professor Wagstaff school of thought.

In some ways music is a lot like sports. But sports have mutually determined and agreed upon rules which, when broken, define failure. There are winners (and that implies "losers") in these sorts of games and matches and contests of finite length. Music has none of that with the exception of the Pop/American/Lithuania/Parmistan Idol shows. And those just seem to go on forever.

I totally agree with you that denying the Beatles their proper credit is ludicrous. It makes me wonder why someone would do that. And then I get curious about why you think it is proper that the Fab Four gets said credit.

[You probably aren't implying a chronological progression but it sounds as if you are saying 'Strawberry Fields Forever,' "combined the concepts of 'I am The Walrus'." I could play it cute and preface this with an "I think that..." But I'm certain that Sgt. Pepper came before Magical Mystery Tour.]

I refuse to look at Beatles music in the manner of Jeff Lynne. I couldn't prove it in court but I'm convinced that he is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame serial killer. You'd be wise to watch your back, Bob Dylan.

I think I understand most (much, some?) of the credit that you are putting where it belongs. I am very intrigued and eager to learn why you think the credit belongs there.

If I notice anyone being abusive I intend to ridicule and belittle them to within an inch of their pathetic little craven meagre lives... with all due respect.

To me it's simple. ELO decides to pick up on where the Beatles left off on "I am the Walrus". So the Beatles deserve credit for starting a future musical development. That’s all give credit where credit is due. This has nothing to do with Scarffiods it's about being credible and not slandering someone's music and its influence. I don't like Bob Dylan at all but I realize his influence on the Beatles and others.

I am saying when it comes to "I am the Walrus" it has some of the same traits as "Strawberry Fields Forever" as in Psychedelic Rock with avant sounding string style. After those similarities there are different. "Strawberry Fields Forever" was recorded months before "I am the Walrus".

There's the rub....
Seems you're equating "being responsible for future developments" with "coming up with something new". But what if they didn't come up with something new but instead are responsible in the sense that they just helped propogate it? Then the point loses it's relevance even if it's still true.

Yes when it comes to to Roger McGuinn and ELO I am straight out saying it I am equating "being responsible for future developments" with "coming up with something new.

Seems to me that you don't know the difference between fact from what you want to believe. Then I do remember you saying "Tomorrow Never Knows" was not a rock song or "Love You To" had no rock elements.

It's pretty much an insult to say the Beatles were propogating something when the musicians are crediting the Beatles for influencing them in a musical direction. You have your facts twisted mate its The Byrds and ELO who took from the Beatles first. To give the Beatles no credit is ludicrous. What songs sounded like "A Hard Days Night" or "I am the Walrus" when these respective songs came out or had the combined concepts of those songs? You are a Scarziod so I should take it where it comes from. I think someone pointed out that "I am the Walrus" also influenced Roger Hocuzky into rock music.

I speak for myself you are insulting me as a musician with your constant twisting of the facts of the Beatles music. I give credit where it belongs. That is the difference between me and you.

Roger McGuinn- "It was really the Beatles who made the biggest difference in so many folk musicians’ lives”.” They were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll". So there you have it from the horse’s mouth the Beatles Music started another trend in music. The Beau Breummels another by product of the Beatles. The Beatles music had the right concepts or combinations that influenced these artists in a different musical vision. Some might have had one element or two like the Searchers in common with the Beatles but they lacked backbeat and the modal harmonies the Beatles had. You guys don't look at the Beatles music in the way McGuinn and Lynne nor should I expect you to. I give credit where it belongs.

Let's say you invented a brand new thing. Then I, hearing it or not, did something of the same character and became popular. Then a whole bunch of people heard and echoed it.

I'd be playing a big role in the way things played out, so I'd be responsible for future developments. A historical role. But you'd be important too - just in a difference sense, a sense that relates more to the idea of artistic merit.

These are two separate points. No one's saying that one type of significance is more relevant than the other. We're here in this thread to explain the differences.

I think I explained myself well enough for you to grasp that they came up with something new and were responsible for future developments. The Beatles directly influenced these musicians into a different musical direction with their new style or combined concepts. I really don't want to discuss again the Beatles uniqueness you have read my posts.

That is different than saying the Beatles started the British Invasion, Or Nirvana popularizing Grunge Music.

You are a Scarzoid so what do I expect. When someone says "Tomorrow Never Knows" is not a rock song or has no rock elements where there is (distorted guitars, vocal style, and loud pounding drums) or "Love you To" does not have rock elements when there is a (highly distorted basically avant guitar tone on the song and vocal style). It sort makes you Sean look not credible. I hope I am not being insulting. You are not coming from a musician’s point of view like I am.

Kahutz, I have had the strangest debates with Sean. Sean won't accept anything unless it's comes from the Scarziod himself. The so called rock concept albums of 1968 most of them had some influence from Sgt Pepper itself. He refuses to accept that their is guitar drone on Ticket To Ride or jangle on songs like "A Hard Days Night" "You Can't Do That" or "What You're Doing" or their is phasing on "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds". That’s just the start.

Here is my advice to you Sean go read Songwriting Secrets on the Beatles. Go get the vinyl version of Sgt Pepper and hear Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with phasing. In fact, go get Anthology I and listen to the demo versions "A Hard Days Night" or "I'll Be Back" you notice how the 12 string jangle sound and folk rock was already there. The chords are the same they just fastened the pace that all. Now if you where a musician you would notice. Now Peace

It occurs to me (and I'm not advocating this, just noting it as a potential avenue), that if this list were moved to a custom genre (you could call it whatever you want, "special interest music", whatever) then it wouldn't appear in recent updates or pages like that. Taking that a step further, somebody could create a list called "Have All Your Beatles Fights Here" in a custom genre, and folks could have at it, and it wouldn't show up as updates on the aggregated pages. If a Beatles fight broke out on some innocent list, you could just say "take this discussion here", and point to the list.

Or, for the whole Beatles thing, I just just add a little code to Listology to filter out any comments that reference the Beatles or Scaruffi, but then folks would start spelling it B3atles, or Scaruff1, and the arms race would be on. :-)

:-) Excellent. I just checked the code and even had you stuck this in a custom genre those show up on the "recent" pages too. Forgot how my own site works! Still, having a dedicated battleground seems like a good solution.

Very little of what I said has anothing to do with Scaruffi. I think I've just pointed out a few cases where arguments against him involved logical fallacies. I accept things if they make sense, and many times I disagree with his points (I think he underrates Revolver).

Of course the 1968 concept albums were influenced by Sgt. Pepper. But that doesn't say anything about how interesting Sgt. Pepper's is or how interesting those albums were. So it's not really worth bringing up.

It's widely documented that A Hard Days' Night has a bunch of songs with jangle. I never said anything to the contrary. And as for Ticket To Ride, it's just that whatever near-droning might be in the song doesn't lend the song a sufficient amount of creative depth, so it doesn't really affect me.

As for Lucy, if it does have phasing, it doesn't make it's way into the way the song sounds. So it's just that it doesn't affect my view on it's creativity. Recording techniques are fun to talk about and are impressive achievements, but they don't always provide the artistic advantage I'm looking for. Hope you see what I mean.

This is a mischaracterization of what I said (wher'd you read me say I'm not a musician by the way?).

Of course Tomorrow Never Knows and Love You To have rock elements. I never said otherwise. I just said they lean more toward the avant-garde (the former) and the Raga/Indian Classical style (the latter). This is such a small point though, when it's more interesting to talk about the artistic merit of the songs.

Perhaps you can call Tomorrow Never Knows an experimental peice that sounds somewhat like the Velvet Underground's minimalist drone-rock concert style with Fugs and Frank Zappa-like sound collage interludes of a Byrdsy psychedelic character.

The way I see it, the song presents those three elements in a less interesting way than in their original models (not that they were using them as models intentionally), in a way not compensated by the uniqueness in mixing them all.

Please you said you just played the guitar a little. Other than that to be frank if you were a musician you would know the difference between what the Beatles were doing compared to the Byrd’s. Here is "Tomorrow Never Knows".

Tomorrow Never Knows"
Simple verse form: a single eight-measure structure played nine times with no chorus.
Accompanying music is a static Indian single harmonic drone in its Indian Context.
Tape loops avant-garde classical music
Musique Concrete using backward sound-
Distorted Vocals
The song was mixed in real time, rendering a repeat of the mix impossible (also an art approach)
The band is playing one chord.
The song is part mixed metre
The song is in Dorian and in Mixolydian Mode
The song is Modal related to Indian music not blues or folk
The drum and bass style is repetitive Additional sounds sampling act as a background with psychedelic influence. Many have cited this song as a model for many types of modern dance music.

There is nothing done by the Byrd’s or Zappa that remotely resembles this song or its concepts. There is Musique Concrete backward music, the song is Modal, Indian drones, simple verse, distorted vocals; repetitive drum and bass playing one note that has electronic samples via the mellotron and other samples that act as musical backdrop. The Beatles used drone as early in 1964, the Beatles used Classical Indian drones and backward tape tape loops and Stockhausen like avant garde tape loops. Other than that the songs are very similar. LOL

What is that you don't get? Listen to the songs Sean many songs have one or two elements that might be the same but you need to hear the whole song. That is why I think you have looked foolish in my eyes you don't get the whole picture. I could easily say the Byrd’s early music The Beatles + Dylan= The Byrd’s. with your logic. But that would be missing the whole picture. I promise Darktremor this is the last of it from me. This is now bordering on the insane.

That's the thing, I'm just not interested in these musicological details. All these methods/processes techniques, song-structure concepts, chords, and whatnot are interesting to me only when the contribute to making the music sound interesting to me. And even then, it's the resulting sound rather than these details that I care about.

I know they used drone in 1964. But not in a way that, to me, allowed for a profound and deep listening experience. Same goes for their use of classical indian drones (of which they weren't the first). And I just feel that the Varese/Schaeffer/Stockhausen-esque sound-collage format was done much more creatively by Zappa and especially the Fugs.

For everyone here I am done with this topic out of respect to Darktremor. Sean you care about what's interesting to you that’s opinion related. With this logic you are negating what is behind the music you are again brushing aside what the musicians did on your values of creativity. Just like the music on your values don't brush aside what the musicians were doing musically and what was going behind the scenes. I doubt any musician would think in the lines you are speaking of.

But I may add two things you have forgotten. One the Beatles added Classical Indian elements of its drone and in mode in a rock context. Which the Byrd’s and The VU did not use. Two, "Tomorrow Never Knows" the Varese/Schaeffer/Stockhausen-esque sound-collage format is mixed in with electronic music via the mellotron Zappa was not doing that. It's all opinion whether Zappa or the Fugs were more creative. That’s not musical. I am out of this topic. I apologize to Darktremor.

I'll stop as well except to say Zappa's music was equally as "electronic" if not moreso. And to say the Byrds orVU did not use the classical indian drone in a rock context is just about the most innacurate statement in this whole thread.

What is that you don't get "Tomorrow Never Knows" used drone from an Indian Instrument. The Byrds and VU did not. The Beatles used the electronic instrument the mellotron on the samples of "Tomorrow Never Knows". Zappa did not. I actually deleted that fundamental gene out. You are driving me mad with your lack of acknowledgement of what the Beatles did musically. I am amazed that you don't understand Classical Indian application of drone the Beatles were using compared to guitar drone. Right now I have to admit I am no longer mad I find this topic pretty funny. Back to work.

I apologize to Sean. I have debated with Sean many times and I have been cordial and Sean has been the same way. This time I think Sean thought process was way out of line. Not that it's an excuse. Brillian post Kahutz again. Peace dude.

I'm glad you see that, thank you. If anyone on the other side has been insulting and I didn't notice, I apologize for not chewing them out about it, I would have (as flinging insults destroys good discussions and makes everybody involved look foolish).

Note to both you and Kahutz:
"These concepts are often brought up (in arguments in support of a band's merit) by those who value other aeshetics, and when it is replied that the points they are irrelevant, it should be noted that they're only irrelevant to one aesthetic. It is not implied that the other aesthetics are invalid or wrong."
- Seanseansean
He's clearly stating here that this isn't the only way to think about music, it's just the way he does, and he even says that no one else is wrong for thinking differently. I don't think anyone can or should take offense at that. No one is hurt by his point of view, therefore, his point of view is not offensive. Plus, he's clearly put a lot of thought into it, whether you agree with it or not. I should point out that this list is here to celebrate the differences between our musical listening on the site - of all places, no one should be offended by a different way of thinking here. Seanseansean's view is also understandable (even though I personally don't fully agree with it): not everyone is interested in technical details, some are, the two sides shouldn't fight about it.

As an example of this: My uncle is a software engineer and graphic artist, and he watches every CG film he can get his hands on and looks for all kinds of technical and production techniques used to make the film, and watches for little else. I personally prefer story and character development. He is not insulted by my lack of interest in "amazing use of Maya NURBS and Lightwave pixel mapping!" I'm not insulted that he doesn't care very much about plot or character development. Different personalities, different vision of what art is. The same deal with Scaruffi-ists, and rockists and/or Beatlemaniacs. Offense doesn't even enter into it.

(Note that I'm on neither of your sides, I see music differently from both you and Khriz and seanseansean (I DO enjoy some technical details if they're particularly interesting - IE: I love early work by Oval for that reason, but they don't dominate my listening; and note that the Oval innovations can be heard in the music). My taste tends mainly towards electronica, indie rock, and jazz, with some listening in blues, "world," classical/baroque/romantic/etc., Krautrock, Classic rock, avante-garde, and funk/soul).

Just seeing this list for the first time. Funny to see myself as an example of a metalhead since I listen to a lot of different stuff. The top 5 bands on my last.fm profile are Guided By Voices/Robert Pollard, Jay Reatard, J Church, The Replacements and Les Thugs. Not a metal band among them. But yeah, I listen to a lot of metal. Maybe 30-40% of the stuff I listen to falls into that category.

The one thing I think is inaccurate in your metalhead description is Dream Theater and Pantera being used as examples of bands liked by people with underground tastes. Underground metalheads are more likely to be into black metal, death metal and grindcore. So bands like Gorgoroth, Nile and Pig Destroyer might be better examples.

There's just so much stuff out there and some metalheads confine themselves to a particular style (say...melodic Swedish death metal), while others of us check out anything and everything. I'd say I was a musical omnivore...

Where do you think you'd be best placed, if not as a metalhead? (I put you as a metalhead on Cosgrove's suggestion.) Also, which albums would you say best represent underground metalheads? I have little to no experience with metal.

Rockists (Or Classic Rockists) I go with Classic Rock with some Modern Rock. Most people nowadays say both are separate. Many people think it's now genre unto itself Classic Rock. Classic Rock many of its core artists have some semblance of melodic content. Modern Rock much of its pure angst. Classic Rock is probably the only place where you will hear bands like Jethro Tull, and King Crimson. The only thing I don't like about Classic Rock much of it's build on riffs Led Zeppelin being the prime example. I like riffs with powerful vocals but sometimes it dominates the play list example "Whole Lotta Love". I would add Modern Rock to your list DarkT.

Yup, I'm definitely a Scaruffist as you describe. I'm also guilty of bringing Scaruffism to Listology.

But I also fit every line of your description for ADHD (eclecticism). I've enjoyed almost every style on your "Every style of music ever created" listed, plus about a thousand others (because when it comes to the modern avant-garde, almost every composer is literally his/her own style).

My "greatest albums" list should not be mistaken for a "favorite albums" list, which would include selections from hundreds of genres, and would change every month.

I might also be a candidate for that new category you've considered, "classical music lovers", since I've listened to more classical (and contemporary classical) composers than anyone I know.

I suspect nobody you "peg" will be happy until you've given them their own category, but I think it's fun what you've done here.

Hmmm, I wonder if its possible to make a Movie Personalities. The categories aren't so clear-cut, methinks. Populists? Indie-Lovers? Foreign-lovers? Oldie-lovers?

I think movie personalities would be almost totally impossible on listology, because I think everyone would fit into too many at once. I mean, my movie taste is nothing special, and I think I'd fit into every category you just mentioned. Although, "weird-movies" might fit me. I don't know...

I'm glad you feel mostly satisfied with Scaruffi-ism. Maybe your eclecticism fits Scaruffi-ism too: after all, he has lists that sit in most styles - in fact, I think he's reviewed at least a handful of albums from every genre and almost every sub-genre. Positive reviews to at least one of each major genre too.

I think you're right about everyone wanting their own category. I've also noticed, no matter how much I tried to even up the different styles, I'm noticing everybody seems to identify with ADHD (no matter how perjorative I made the category sound). Even in real-life, people who CLEARLY aren't eclectic define themselves as such. I mean, I think we've all heard: "I love both kinds of music: rap AND hip-hop!" Or most commonly: "I listen to everything!" (And what's that?) "Rock [Nickelback], rap [50 cent], pop [Justin Timberlake], and even a bit of techno [read: "Everytime we touch", and "Destination Calabria"]. I even have a boring classical song for sleeping [3 whole minutes long!], and two by Shania Twain!"

Is that really true about the modern avante-garde? You HAVE to direct me to some of this! I've only heard a few composers, but I've basically liked it all (Mainly: Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Claude Debussy, Stockhausen, Schoeneburg, Pierre Boulez, Ornette Coleman, Carla Bley, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Charles Mingus, Don Cherry, Albert Ayler, and a lot of glitch, IDM, and abstract electronic music).

Thanks, I'm acquiring them now. Osvaldo Golijov is pretty interesting so far. I already had Anthony Braxton, but I never really understood him. Do you have any recommended albums by them? Or any other suggestions?

You need to make a list of this stuff! I think it would appeal to a lot of people. It's hard to find/get into the avante-garde, which is really the only reason I haven't delved into it more.

It is hard to get into the avant-garde. Somebody with more time and money than I have should write a book that provides a path of excitement and discovery, one that takes the listener by the hand and guides him or her from an appreciation of Coldplay all the way out to Stockhausen. I suppose the best strategy is to listen your way from the most accessible to the least.

All the minimalists must be accessible, because they have dominated film scores since the 90s. Start there, work your way deeper.

Almost anything by Kronos Quartet is aimed at a slightly more mainstream audience. Or try the neo-classicists and the neo-romantics. Or the rock-tinged composers like Michael Gordon, Rhys Chatham, Glenn Branca. Some of the younger composers, who grew up on rock music, write accessible works: Thomas Ades, John Metcalfe, etc. Also try the operas of Wynton Marsalis. Also try the neo-sacred composers, like Arvo Part and John Rutter, and post-1970 Gorecki.

Rzewski's The People United Will Never Be Defeated is a nice summary of everything that happened in piano music in the 20th century.

Blah blah blah I could list shit for ages. Great stuff out there. You'll never run out of interesting sounds to hear.

lukeprog (or anyone else this can be applied to), where do you find the time to listen to so much music? do you just scan a bunch of music and revisit the ones that were interesting, or do you actually listen to everything you can get your hands on ALL THE WAY THROUGH? because, i try to do the latter, and it wears me out!

currently i have given up on trying to find more music, or simply listening to what i have on my computer (400+gb, i am not sure though, i am not at home). i try to jump into completely different waters every time i get warped - i am now going to jump into darktremor's electronic music DEEP - but i always give up too quickly and revert to the same old shit.

i was curious because i used to be able to listen to 10+ new albums a day, and now i find it hard to listen A Rainbow In Curved Air unless i am dying to listen to it; i usually listen to nothing...i watch too much television (something i had control over for awhile). i will track down the stuff you mentioned in this thread, but sadly, it will probably get downloaded and just sit there for a year or so. :-(

yeah, i carry my ipod everywhere i go too, and listen to most music while i am working, but i do not work much. i guess i was curious how you have found the time to listen to so much music when there are only 24 hours in a day and some albums are well over 40 minutes and your knowledge seems to be relatively bottomless.

For about three years I did nothing but work part time, live in a relative's basement, watch movies and listen to music. I do not recommend this.
But it does give you time for a ridiculous amount of culture consumption.

Advice I wish I'd heard earlier: Go out and practice dating. Practice it like you would practice the piano. Go out and flirt with the opposite sex a few hours each day. See what works and what doesn't. When you're good at that, move on to the next step. Practice building attraction. Practice getting people's attention. Practice body language. Each skill is a tool in your toolbox.

Eventually you'll be playing the Rach Three. And by that I mean, getting laid as much as you want. Later, you can use these same skills to land the mate of your dreams, if that's what you want.

College is a great training ground. Make use of it.

I can almost guarantee those skills are more important than the knowledge you are learning in class.

yes, i know all of that, and that is much, MUCH more important than any intellectual struggle! but i am a bit of a recluse, a bit of an agoraphobic (though this is a somewhat crude use of the word as i do not actually FEAR the outside, i am just too anxious/depressed/whatever to do anything - even with people that i would like to do something with), and it is more of a problem with literally wanting to get out of bed and eat everyday. i always sabotage myself in every scenario possible. so, even if a girl that i am attracted to is attracted to me, i always resolve dissonance in my opposition, in any facet of life. probably too much information, oh well, i will regret it later.

and class time is generally a waste of fucking time, unless for that coveted piece of paper. yes there can be more to college than this, but not for me: i could care less (maybe because i am uninspired).

i thought this page was supposed to be for discussion of "Musical Personalities Present on Listology"? hmmmmm....

i dropped out 4 weeks into the first time around because it was a waste of time, and i should drop out now, or think VERY hard about what it is that i want to do for the long haul. i am only going out of convenience now and do not take it all that serious. i have learned more on my own than i have with any professor's guidance (most of them are not good at what they try to do).

why did you drop out after spending so much time in college? or am i falsely assuming that you only had a 1/2 year to go.

I agree, college is pretty much a waste of time (as is university), unless you're doing specific technical training, which is basically science, engineering, medicine, law, teaching, or psychology if you take it into graduate school. I've learned more just reading and talking to people than I have in most of my classes; in fact, a lot of my classes actually contradict one another (which is annoying, because sometimes I'll answer questions asked to the class by the professor with taken answers directly out of textbooks from other courses, and get shot down). The testing is arbitrary too, it doesn't actually test knowledge of the material. I had an exam once that was entirely composed of questions like the following (direct quote, BTW, all that's changed is the name):
Where were you taught the theory that was presented with an analogy involving a rubber band?
1) In the first lecture
2) In the second lecture
3) In the video viewed in lecture 3
4) By the guest speaker, Ken Macdonald.

Even when it does test knowledge of the material, it tests stupid things that all of us just memorize the night before and forget the next day (IE: what percentage of children of divorced parents will also divorce? (according to Mclosky and Kinnen, 2004) a)30% b)31% c)32% d)33%).

The only reason I do well in university is because I've learned to manipulate the system (IE: butter professors up into giving me answers, flatter them into marking me easily, "appearing intelligent" so I get the benefit of the doubt, figure out what sort of professor I have and study whatever specific stupid details they prefer [rather than wastefully learn all of the material], etc.). Which teaches what, exactly? That we have to bend rules, control others, suck-up, decieve, and be generally corrupt to be successful in life? In fact, this is the only reason anyone does well in university - I don't know anyone who has an A- average or higher that doesn't do these things. It's an awful system, and it's not just my paranoia, a lot of us have noticed on all level of the system. My favorite professor gave a speech a few months ago titled "Why university teaching fails miserably, and why undergraduate psychology training in particular is a corrupt caricature of what education is supposed to be." Not that that actually helped, as the school's upper management is filled with sociopaths (this is according to the professors I know personally who gave me a list of names to avoid for graduate work) and simpering cowards who bend over backwards to please them (who will lose their jobs if they do otherwise).

The only advantage I see to university (besides the specific technical fields) is having a degree to wave at companies looking to hire. It's all about credibility. The social aspect is really good too - it's a great place to meet intelligent people with reasonable ideas and opinions. And I exagerrate a bit: you do learn SOME things in classes - just not nearly what you could if the system wasn't so twisted and arbitrary.

Ha! That makes me miss the daily school-bashing I used to do with my buddies.

Mostly, a degree tells employers that you can stick with something that is dumb and useless, like the job they are planning to hire you for. It is an accurate but happy reflection on me that I failed that test.

I switched my major a few times so I had 1-1.5 years left.

The other day I spoke with a beautiful, young, travel-loving woman who had just signed up for an 8-year contract with the Air Force because she didn't know what else to do. I had to stop talking about my adventurous dreams so she wouldn't regret her decision. Regret is a waste of time, but locking yourself in something you might not like is a bigger waste.

The only reason I'm sticking with it is because I AM in one of those technical fields: I plan to do graduate work, which is the only way to become a cognitive scientist. I can eventually be free of the bureaucratic crap if I make a name for myself enough that I can't be touched (like the previously mentioned professor).

I feel sorry for that girl. I've known a number of people trapped in military contracts, and a lot of them find their lives - or a major portion of them - ruined by them. My Dad, for instance, was supposed to be an astronaut, was accepted and everything, but the military refused to let him go. Not only that, despite having more education and experience than ANYONE above him (3 Ph.Ds, 5 bachelors, 3 masters), right up the base commander, he was never promoted, because they needed him to do their technical work. Since he was locked into contract, they didn't have to fear losing him, so he was paid the standard for his position at some absurdly tiny amount of money each year (like $20,000). We eventually had to go to the food bank (which went on for several years), since there were 6 of us, and we had massive debts already. Once he finally got out, his salary increased by over 10X - it was ridiculous. I have some friends who joined up, and 1 year later, already regret their decisions, but can't leave. The military is awful - I was advised repeatedly throughout my childhood never to join. Heh...maybe institutions in general are awful (well, most).

What majors did you try out? And what do you do now that you've dropped out?

Glad to hear you're going into cognitive science. Such an exciting field.

I tried psychology and Spanish. Now I work as a computer analyst (breakfix, setup networks and servers, etc.). I'll probably never do one thing longer than 5 years, though. I have a short attention span and I love to travel.

That does sound like you've had some pretty shitty experiences with very poorly written tests. I do think the importance of testing is overrated, as I think I learned far more attending class and writing papers than taking multiple choice tests.

However, to all of you referring to college as a dumb, useless waste of time? Well, maybe if you have the attitude that it's just a degree-spitting-out machine, or maybe if you find yourself forced to engage in a lot of material you're not interested in, but for me, being at college was one of the best experiences of my life. Sure, I was required to take some classes where attempting to manipulate the system seemed preferable to actually studying the material (Accounting 101, for example), but the truly engaging classes and professors make that other stuff all worth it. When I really connected with a class, I found myself learning so much about the way the world works and about myself.

It's not just the classes, of course; college opens up a plethora of social and extracurricular opportunities where, again, I learned about everything from the prevalence of gun violence to my personal skills as a leader.

Classes contradict each other? Sure, that's bound to happen when you're delving into many different schools of thought.

If employers are hoping to use my degree as proof I can stick with something dumb and useless, they'll certainly be misled by my degree and many of the people I went to school with, all of whom loved being there and hated to leave. I think there's a lot more to a college degree than that, personally. I've read a study that says that not only do people with college degrees tend to make more money than those with out, they're also more likely to be happier in other areas. For example, the more education you have, the more likely you are to believe in true love. That doesn't sound like the mark of a group of people who are in a dumb, useless, slog through life to me.

I certainly never meant to imply that college-loving people are leading a dull slog through life. Quite the opposite!

I didn't like college because it didn't fit me, and it wasn't anything like how they sold it to me.

No doubt the college educated are richer, and therefore also happier in other ways. (Also, if you are happy and confident already, you are more likely to get through college.) I'm not sure what to think about those who believe in true love. From watching others, it seems to cause more heartache and disillusionment than it does bliss, which I easily explain with my notion that "true love" is... oh hey, I forgot to add it to my list! Thanks, AJ!

You're thanking me for reminding you that you're cynical of true love? Jeez, I feel like Lisa in the episode of the Simpsons where she teaches Mr. Burns about recycling and he thanks her while using the knowledge to recycle sea animals into all-purpose goo.

Anyway. I've known a ton of people (including myself) who've gone through meaningful and/or long-term relationships that ended in heartache, but I don't know a single person who regretted those experiences once all was said and done. Were all of the people I know encountering true love? I can't say, nor can I say with certainty that I know what "true love" even is, but I can say that my memories of those events and feelings far outweighed any disillusionment. Didn't you learn anything from Eternal Sunshine? :-)

Hey, true love is simple: oxytocin rushes through the brain in a massive overload for about a year. During that time you develop a deep emotional bond with the person who caused it, since you spend so much time with them during that year (kind of like an extremely close friendship, really). Being in the presence of the other person is then positively reinforced by sex (reinforced in the operant conditioning sense). On top of this, occasionally the person who caused the initial, year-long oxytocin release re-triggers the initial rush through secondary conditioning. This happens in the same way that seeing food you are now allergic to that you used to love still makes you salivate - although you can't eat it. This can last forever, but it's never quite as strong as actually eating the food.

Put all of that together, and you have a very strong connection between two people. It can all be explained by biology. There's obviously more complexity than that in relationships, but explaining the emotion of "true love" is quite simple, really.

Disappointment comes for three main reasons (there are obviously others, but these are the big ones):
1)People don't realize that the oxytocin rush is supposed to end and be replaced by a sexually reinforced (best) friendship with glimmers of the early period - they assume they fell out of love, not that their relationship progressed the way it biologically must.
2)No friendship was formed during the oxytocin rush, so when it ends, there's no connection except the sexual.
3)The friendship deteriorates after the oxytocin rush. This is basically why marriages fail. The causes of this deterioration are, of course, complex and not fully understood - although there are some nice theories. [John Gottman's is particularly elegant, and powerfully empirical - his "microexpression" research is brilliant, and I suggest everyone look into it. He can predict if a marriage will fail with 81% accuracy over a 7-9 period, and 90% over 4-6, which is very much statistically significant.]

Disillusionment usually comes when people harbour myths about relationships, which reality can never match (this is really common, actually). Sometimes it also shows up if people have low self-esteem (Ever hear someone say: "no one will ever love me"?), or if they have a personality disorder - such as narcissism ("There's no one out there good enough for me"). There's no realistic reason to be disillusioned about love. It's just a pleasant sort of social relationship one can have.

Actually, they're both from books.
Gottman's research is from the book "What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes," or if you want, he has a layperson version: "Why Marriages Succeed or fail: and how to make yours last." They're good books though: they've been referenced in 3 different classes of mine, and the studies he cites of his own in those books are from peer-reviewed journals.

You're going to have to google oxytocin, unless you want to pick up a copy of "Biological Psychology," 2007, which I don't recommend: it's a course text.

No offence intended in my comment, but I would say that this really isn't how I would advise people to go out and meet people who are prospective girlfriends/boyfriends.

'Each skill is a tool in your toolbox.'

To me, this sounds quite clinical, as if relationships are something that you need to practice and hone your techniques on. If you find someone who you're truly connecting with, you don't need fancy dating tips or body language lessons.

Perhaps for a superficial sex-filled life, this could work. But man, someone as obviously intelligent as yourself must wish for a stimulating (physically and mentally) relationship that isn't just based around great first impressions which is what the tips you gave seem to improve.

Not to say that good body language and first impressions aren't important, but practising them in the way you suggest seems to me to be a bit unnecessary.

For instance, say you're at a party, and you're quite outgoing and are engaging with similar people on a superficial level and everything seems to be going smoothly, but as you get to know them, you realise you have nothing in common other than that you both went out with the intent of meeting people and being outgoing. There's someone else at that party who's just right for you, enjoys similar things to you, has a similar sense of humour etc but they're shy so you never get the chance.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this lukeprog and once again I'm not intending to bash you or your socialising, I just feel it had to be said.

Sadly, what Blind says about dating and relationships works only for building great friendships. This is a really important skill too, and it IS important to have also have a great friendship with whoever your lover is (be it a boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, whatever), or lovers are - if you want your relationships to be satisfying. However, on the attraction side of things, it IS a skill. If you want a relationship that has the sexual/romantic connection, and not just the friendship, you need to work on it and practice it: there are certain rituals, orders, and rules it follows, and there are certain biological facts that have to be taken into account. You can't just "connect deeply with someone" and have a relationship - this myth is the reason so many guys get told that they're "just friends" with a girl they're attracted to. The problem today is that a lot of what creates attraction in a girl biologically made a lot of sense living in a hunter-gatherer society - hence why we've evolved it - but it makes very little sense today, and isn't relevant to our modern civilization (as is apparent when we see how many girls "go for the bad guy" or get into abusive relationships and stay, for example). It's basically just an ancient biological non-verbal language that one needs to learn if one is going to be successful with women. This is actually scientific fact - there's a whole field of study dedicated to sexual signalling and romantic attraction under human nonverbal communication.

Note that for some, this nonverbal communication comes naturally, and no learning and/or practice is needed (at least some of it comes naturally to almost everyone).

Also note that a lot of what attracts women is not intuitive - thinking too much without guidance is what leads to a lot of myths (IE: writing a song about the girl never works!!!). I may make a list of dating myths, actually.

To Blind above:
You were talking about meeting people who you have nothing in common with through being outgoing as if it's quite negative, but isn't it often very enjoyable to meet people you have little in common with? I love meeting people who have a lifestyle completely alien to my own - their stories are often very fascinating, and it stops you from getting trapped in one way of thinking (as can happen when in a tight-knit group of similar people). Everyone should have friends from as many walks of life as possible - it's good for you (Despite being a university student working on becoming a scientist, I've got not just aspiring scientist friends, but also homeless friends, drug-dealer friends, gangster friends, raver friends, hippie friends, anarchist friends, etc., and it's great for your worldview - keeping an open mind on people is always good for you, and you'll meet a lot of fascinating people that way who you never thought you'd meet).

Yeesh, y'all have been brainwashed by men who claim to teach you the predatory aspects of dating. Yeah, listening to Frank T.J. Mackey will probably get you laid. However...

True, I don't think that any good relationship is solely based on a deep friendship. There is the attraction side of things too. What I am saying is that you don't need to be consciously manipulating the attraction side of things; that often if you have the deep connection, the rest will fall into place. I've seen it happen to other people, and I've had it happen to me. These relationships are not all that rare, but they are special, and I think, ultimately more satisfying than mere sexual stimulation (which can come from a conscious exploitation of the knowledge of romantic communication, or can come from just a friendship - I've seen both).

Besides, these dating techniques assume that all women are the same and react similarly to the same things, which I can assure you is not true.

I think Blind meant "nothing in common" in the sense that when you start talking about substantive things, you find you can't relate to these people on a real level, not that their background is different from yours. I do agree with everything you've said in the last paragraph.

I agree that you don't have to be consciously manipulating the attraction side of things. That's where practice comes in: given enough time (unless you're autistic or have Aspergers, or possibly ADHD), you'll just naturally start doing a lot of them. The only place I disagree is that it certainly is possible to consciously manipulate without being predatory and harming the future relationship - if this were the case, then social skill training wouldn't work for forming regular friendships, and it does. Creating attraction is a social skill like any other. Not to say that there aren't manipulative and predatory ways to do it and uses for it, as there certainly are (IE: trying to have sex with as many women as possible, to seduce people of power to manipulate them, etc.).

It's true that not all women act the same, but there are unquestionably commonalities between them - most "dating techniques" account for this (I read one book that said a 1 out of 10 hit ratio was very good in the dating game). Note that most people peddling "dating techniques" are full of shit.

When things just fall into place, it's pretty much always because you're just unconsciously creating attraction - just like we don't always consciously send out signals for friendliness, hostility, frustration, etc..

Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, I certainly am all for getting out into the world, taking chances, and trying new things in a social setting. I'd probably advocate it more as a way to lead an interesting life than a means toward honing social skills, but that's certainly a nice bonus.

You're right, it may not be predatory, but I do think it's a bit sad when people feel they need to learn more about socializing in order to exploit what they know to present a false version of themselves, but guys who do that are probably having more sex than I am, so it's kind of a wash. :-)

You are not presenting a fake version of yourself, that's a mistake, you are improving yourself, taking the best of what you already and develop some new and exciting things, to become a better version of yourself.